Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Word Patent Case Going To Supreme Court
jfruhlinger writes "Microsoft may have had to change Word after being found guilty of violating a Canadian company's patents, but it's still resisting paying for damages — and is taking the fight to the US Supreme Court. If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?"
If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?"
The only side certain to win this.
You can hope the patent and patents like it get invalidated, by the way. The patent can get invalidated with Microsoft still being liable.
There are outcomes that satisfy anyone, unless you hate lawyers and multi-million dollar settlements with big corporations too, in which case, you are boned.
You root for Microsoft, of course. If you don't like Microsoft, you can choose not to use their software. But everyone is affected by the ridiculous state of the patent system right now. I'm not optimistic that the Supreme Court can/will restore any sanity, but it's a much bigger problem than any one company.
Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
Microsoft kind of does oppose software patents. When have you seen them going after other companies if they don't provoke the legal fight first? They have also freed their patents to open and free-to-use patents organizations. The only cases where Microsoft has used their patents portfolio to fight against patent trolls is, well, when the patent troll has started going after MS first.
Ultimately, the whole software patent system is faulty. But currently, companies have to go by it and that means Microsoft has to register their patents too. Blame the system.
So Canadian Court says pay money, so you go above them to the US Supreme Court, aka, Court of the World?
Sig: I stole this sig.
Just be satisfied that each has to deal with the other.
"Which position do your biased emotions tell you to take?"
Hope that MS loses to a multi-billion dollar lose (say even 100 billion), and that afterwards, either SCOTUS or CONgress will kill forever the evil method patents.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not directly going after other companies, but number 235 comes to mind...
Microsoft has more to gain from the destruction of the system of software patents than anyone. Already being in the dominant position in market share, they would be free to implement any good ideas from other pieces of software, and Windows and Windows Server and Office and all their other products would be able to concentrate on features. They would save a ton of money from their legal department and could reallocate that to their development staff. With as much code as they have, I would bet they could technically infringe on the largest number of patents.
Who knows. Maybe they will simply say, "hey we already ruled patents had to be tied to a specific machine, not a generic one like that used here", and rule the patent invalid, and thus set the precedent that all software patents on generic systems are invalid. But I guess that would be logical, and we can't use logic when talking about the US and Patents and Court.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I think patents are just fine, in fact beneficial (although admittedly not to those who want everything for free), and while I have no particular love for Microsoft, I never really understood the hatred either. I guess I'll have to wait for the case to be judged.
It is time to sue the patent office, not the patent holders:
The question the Supreme Court must answer is "What burden of proof is required to invalidate a patent?" The difficulty is that the *legal* answer may not match the *real world* answer. In theory, it should require a high burden of proof because the patent office already examined the patent application, determined it was patentable, searched for prior art, etc. But in reality, the patent office isn't doing that. I wish I could find the public statement where they basically said it isn't their responsibility to search for prior art. This problem is amplified by the fact that recent administrations are relying on the patent office to become a revenue generator.
In my opinion, Microsoft should sue the patent office. If the Supreme Court operates under the assumption that the patent office is following a certain procedure, and they are not, then they should have a case against the patent office. Then, they can go back to the courts and invalidate the patent after they have proven that the patent office is not doing their job.
This used to be true. Now Microsoft has been threatening people with patent litigation. If fact, they took the outstanding step of suing Motorola - several times!
Of course this is neither here nor there on the evilness issue. That's a story that has no beginning and no end, its purity no degree.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I'm sure it has been said in other comments by now, but just in case. Let us not forget that the Canadian company in question actually DID have a product related to the patent. They DID work with Microsoft. Microsoft stopped dealing with them and then continued to use the patented technology knowingly without license. THIS is why the court of appeals UPHELD the court findings. MS still doesn't want to pay, so they are taking all the legal approaches available to them to avoid paying. The Canadian company (IMI) in this particular case is NOT a patent troll. In fact they are actually using the patent system the way it was intended - to stop the big boys from destroying the business of the little players. So, you'll excuse me if I root for IMI in this case. MS is not innocent here - the courts even said so. BUT, perhaps if MS is made to play by the same rules they want competitors to play by, perhaps they'll realize the current system is borked and increase their efforts to help change the system. We'll ignore for now MS's role in creating the current cluster-f#$@ system that is in place. Disclaimer - I'm a Canadian. But I don't care where the company came from. MS bullied the company pretty much out of business by stealing their tech, and now doesn't want to pay the piper for their actions. I don't have any respect for anybody that plays that way.
I'm an Aussie, ya dipstick! I root sheilas....
Opponents of software patents should root for Microsoft here, regardless of how you feel about the company (I loathe their philosophy but like a few of their products).
Believing in justice means believing it applies even to your enemies and opponents. Besides, we don't want the Supreme Court setting some awful pro-software-patent precedent that will haunt less-deep-pocketed open-source developers down the road.
My bicyles
Are we only allowed to hate one company at a time?
When have you seen them going after other companies if they don't provoke the legal fight first?
You mean like just last month when they sued Motorola over Android? I guess you're counting Motorola abandoning the Windows Mobile platform in favor of Android as "provoking" MS.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Pretty much everyone around here loves to bash Microsoft but we will have to have a Microsoft party where we all do a Windows theme for a week on our Linux and Mac boxes if Microsoft does some serious damage to the patenting of software.
Seriously, if MS trashes this whole deranged patent situation they will win the true title of "Do no evil masters of 2011". If you were to compare it to other things on our tech head collective wish lists this would rank at the top with Oracle fully opening up Java, or Network Neutrality. The reality is that not many other companies have the resources to see this through to the end. Even Google tends to roll over in the face of these lawsuits. RIM caved in on one, paying out hundreds of millions, just before the patent was tossed. It seems that MS has realized that Patent Trolls are only going to grow into a bigger problem that cuts into smaller margins.
Yes MS will probably burn some of this Karma by being obnoxious but this is a major deposit in the Karma bank to my thinking.
Thank you Microsoft!
If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?
Whatever, that's easy. The supreme court knocks down all patent law, finding it unconstitutional, while simultaneously fining Microsoft a million billion dollars for contempt of court or something. Is this really that hard for you? The solution is so easy. You're welcome.
Qxe4
SCO's fight against Linux was funded in part by Microsoft. Then there are the 235 mystery patents that Linux supposedly violated. They're more into scare tactics than outright patent war,
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
>>When have you seen them going after other companies if they don't provoke the legal fight first?
How about the whole linux patent thing..
I can list you plenty of reasons for fighting and boycotting Microsoft. Google? You'd have to help me out there.
The only thing I'm really aware of being a problem with google is the collection of personal information. But there's a simple solution to that: don't use google/use it wisely.
For MS there is no workaround. They are and have been keeping the software industry and community back. With MS there is no choice but to fight them in every which way that is possible. It's them or us.
Microsoft kind of does oppose software patents. When have you seen them going after other companies if they don't provoke the legal fight first? They have also freed their patents to open and free-to-use patents organizations. The only cases where Microsoft has used their patents portfolio to fight against patent trolls is, well, when the patent troll has started going after MS first. Ultimately, the whole software patent system is faulty. But currently, companies have to go by it and that means Microsoft has to register their patents too. Blame the system.
NO: http://eupat.ffii.org/gasnu/microsoft/index.en.html
I think you are confusing "patents" with "copyrights".
And when it's all over and done, and software patents are that much further entrenched, we can point to posts like yours and say "You sure got what you wanted! Are you happy now, asshole?"
Figures that you wouldn't even have the balls to attach a pseudonym or handle to your post. Fucking wuss.
FC Closer
Your entire post is false and tantamount to flamebait. Destroying software patents would not allow someone to copy MS code verbatim and only change branding. That would still be covered under copyright. The abolition (or weakening) of software patents would only mean that other teams can create, from scratch, implementations of previously patented software without worrying about the fact that the patent shouldn't even exist because there exists prior art back 10 or 20 years.
FC Closer
Although I would agree that Microsoft has acted in a dishonest and unethical fashion, I'm not sure that redress should be found in the patent court. Can't they sue Microsoft on other grounds, such as breach of trust or violation of their NDA?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
No because Google is still needful. Example, I don't live in Ohio. However, my stories that i am writing the characters do. So I use street view for setting and search for places. I say we need to attack Apple.
It's not patents that prevent that today, it's copyright. It's relatively uncommon (though not rare*) that people suggest the outright dissolution of copyright (the famous example at slashdot is without copyright, there can be no GPL). The common position on slashdot -- and indeed, in many other venues -- is that copyright is far too powerful right now but that it has redeeming value.
* Usually people don't suggest the dissolution of copyright in so many words. What they argue is that because the marginal cost of reproducing digital goods is $0, software piracy is not immoral and therefore should not be illegal. This is really an argument against copyright, whose whole point is to allow you time to recover fixed costs and turn a profit without somebody undercutting you by stealing the idea and replicating it at-cost.
"If you can't stand either MS or patents, who do you root for here?"
Between two evils you should choose to support neither.
- "They misunderestimated me."
I'm going to regard that first post not as a Troll, but as finely crafted satire on the Slashdot groupthink. Seriously, if there's anything trollish here, it's the summary itself. Corporations are not football teams. You don't slavishly follow a brand or a company and excuse it when it behaves badly or condemn it even when it does good. What sort of moron does that make you?
Software patents are damaging and a barrier to entry which reduces competition. If Microsoft (which is a huge organization of people, not a gestalt entity, and thus more than capable of being good in some ways and bad in others), if Microsoft make moves which helps shoot down stupid patents, then that's a good thing.
If you're going to "root" for anything, you root for right action, regardless of whether it's done by sinners or saints (and most are both).
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Another logical option would be to generate as many patents as possible and sue everyone else.
And when it's all over and done, and software patents are that much further entrenched, we can point to posts like yours and say "You sure got what you wanted! Are you happy now, asshole?"
Oddly, your words sound very reminiscent of a speech given in the film "A Man for all Seasons":
William Roper:So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Although Sir Thomas Moore didn't use the word 'asshole', come to think of it...
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The only thing I'm really aware of being a problem with google is the collection of personal information. But there's a simple solution to that: don't use google/use it wisely.
Google analytics is on just anout every web page. The cookie is kept forever. Most users aren't even aware of this sort of thing so "use it wisely" isn't useful advice. They keep information *forever*. They decided to completely ignore copyright and disrespect the authors opinions by indexing every book, then going behind the authors' backs and presenting Google Book search as a fait accompli in order to improve their bargaining position. Google is in a position to punish websites without giving a reason. They have been known to do this.
And Microsoft has a better privacy policy that Google!!!
Not sure if that all makes Google evil but it does make it worth watching them.
If they couldn't enforce their patents, someone could start selling (or giving away) copies of Microsoft products, only having to rebrand them to avoid trademark issues.
Not possible. Microsoft still owns copyright to their products and code even if patents were done with so a person selling or giving away copies would still be in breach of copyright law and equally liable for damages. Rebranding Microsoft's copyrighted products would not change a thing.
Knock offs could be exact replicas of Microsoft software.
Yes, and your point is? The thing is, that's how it should be. You should be allowed to create exact replicas if you so desired. You'd still have to do all the code yourself so someone making a replica of e.g. MS Office would mean they'd have to write millions and millions of lines of code and documentation. If they used existing code they'd possibly again be in breach of copyright laws and be liable for damages.
People could steal everything Microsoft (or any other company) develops.
Incorrect again. You are completely mixing copyright laws and patent laws.
Look, copyright law is about distribution of copyrighted works: if you try to distribute code, application, book, ie. "work" you do so under copyright laws and if you are not the owner of copyright to the "work" in question you either have to obtain permission from the owner or else you'll be distributing it illegally.
Patents are an entirely different beast: someone can for example patent a way of identifying objects in a digital image. Even if you write all the code yourself and own all the copyrights in your software you'll still be in breach of patent laws if you also code a way of identifying objects in a digital image.
Thus patents really only serve to hinder software development and not actually have anything to do with sales -- ie. distribution -- of the software.
Yesterday's actually. Today's hasn't been posted yet.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Well I believe that copyrights should only be a decade and after that should have to be renewed every year starting price of $100k and doubling every year after that. Does that count? And as for whether or not piracy is legal I would argue that in its current form it should be frankly ignored by the entire populace since the current laws were brought about by treasonous bribes. The whole point of copyrights were a contract between We, The People and the artists, NOT the middlemen, not the mega-corps, but the people and the artists. Now it is simply the locking up of our entire culture by multinationals, since pretty much our entire history of the past since the advent of TV will be locked behind paywalls until the end of time thanks to a fucking cartoon rodent. When laws are written by criminals, such as congress critters allowing lobbyists to write laws in return for bribes and cushy jobs for their families, why should they be respected?
As for TFA? That is simple: Microsoft simply because software patents are a giant clusterfuck holding up innovation and creating industries out of doing nothing but leeching off of other companies with lawsuits, so ANY company that brings these kinds of cases to the Supreme Court should be rooted for if for no other reason than hoping that somehow the courts will grow a brain and finally kill these things dead. I personally think Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs are both major assholes but if it was them fighting software patents I'd be "Go Oracle and Apple!" all the way. You don't have to like the company to hope that another hole will be blown through the crap that is software patents.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The answer is C none of the above.
Patents are good, not evil.
However patents should not be able to change owner, a patent should die with it's owner. In company model this means when a company holds a patent, the patents becomes invalid when the company is subemerged into an other owner. While the owner of the company holding the patent can change, the company cannot give the patent holding to a other company. When a company is bankrupt or inactiv the patent should die.
Same thing with persons holding patents, the patents should not be able to gain a new owner. That way you protect the inventor and their work, but nobody else can capitalize on someone elses work.
With such a model patents would do what they are ment for. Maybe also company patents should have a lifetime restriction, e.g. 15-30 years, as companies might not ever die, or get subemerged into other companies.
... but not for their sake.
If MS finds that they are losing enough from software patents, maybe they'll lobby to get them declared invalid.
Common sense?
Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
You've broadened it beyond Software Patents which is what I explicitly referred to. That's a different matter. Software can be protected by copyright which is fair. Applying patents usually amounts to saying that only one group is allowed to solve a problem, which is not.
As regards being able to sell on patents, this is entirely right if the patent itself is right. Certainly they should have a resonable expiry period, but saying that only the person that comes up with an idea is the person who can implement and manage the production of the idea is hugely inefficient and limiting for all parties.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
While your writing style is such of a troll/flamebait one, I agree with most of it.
But I think you should make a distinction when you talk about copyrights.
Copyright is literally, the right to copy, though in legal terms "the right to control copying" is more accurate.
(wikipedia)
This is a contract between the artist and whichever party is concerned. In most case, the middlemen are granted the right to copy the music, not the people. When an artist want to make money of is work, the easiest way is to grant those rights to the middlemen who have money to do the copy and distribution part. That is, the easiest if the middlemen think the art can earn him money. This is far from the best system to encourage diversity and culture development, but that's how it works.
Now while it can seems a fair way for an artist to make money from his work, in the current state of the laws in pretty much every country, this rights are completely unbalanced. The middlemen often control the copyrights in place of the artists and the artists and their family earn money for life for a year or two of work. I'm not against a man getting rich and all, but it's seems a little over rewarding for those lucky enough to appeal the masses. And I'm not talking about the lucky middlemen distributing those lucky artists arts. And the lucky family which have done nothing for the art, and keep the copyrights after the artist death... What the hell?
In fact, even if the copyright lasted a lone decade, it doesn't make sense to me. Just because it's recorded, the artists are paid several times for one performance. At least the middlemen do copy and distribute the arts and so work for every copy they sell, kind of... But why should they be allowed to have exclusivity over the copyrights? This is even less right. The whole art's business system is broken. It's not even fair with all art's forms, as it only work for recordable art.
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
I don't disagree with you at all. All I'm saying is that with google I, as a technical sort of person, have the option to avoid the problems that indeed do exist.
With MS you cannot avoid the problem. MS continues to fight progress and freedom everywhere, and it will impact everybody sooner or later. MS must be destroyed, there is no alternative.
With google it is far far from being that bad right now.
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to push an opinion here. Just presenting the sort of activitiy that some might object to.
You don't slavishly follow a brand or a company and excuse it when it behaves badly or condemn it even when it does good.
Well, you're not supposed to behave that way. However, many people do exactly that. Just look at the Apple / Linux / Microsoft flamewars.
The lawyers.
Granted, but the sentence after that one went: 'What sort of moron would that make you?'. *sigh* You're right so, I suppose the answer would be "the prevalent sort". :)
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
How is my writing like that of a troll, because I am honest and don't bullshit? Were our laws corrupted thanks to a cartoon rodent? Yep and his name Mickey Mouse. As for old Steve and Larry, even fanbois will have to admit they can both be serious asses at times, for example Oracle punt kicking most of the Open Source guys and Steve even blocking magazines that dare to talk about a competitor. Oh and don't forget the famous "You're holding it wrong!" bit. It is a phone, how in the fuck am I supposed to hold it?
And as for your post, middlemen are leeches, full stop. While they had a use in the past when getting a record pressed cost thousands, they simply aren't needing anymore. A much better solution would be an investment type of deal where you agree to pay some of the upfront costs for a percentage of future profits. Ever seen a current recording contract? Because I have, and frankly they'd make you sick. It is the most one sided, fuck the artists, rip everyone off for every penny thing you have ever seen. It makes "Hollywood Accounting" look like an above board practice by comparison.
The reason they can get away with that shit is copyrights, pure and simple. By having a back catalog that thanks to bribes will last for infinity they can build HUGE warchests which they use to buy up the gateways like radio and TV, as well as for bribing politicians to pass ever more laws that favor them. Oh and the artist earning money for life? Yeah, dream on. Did you know it took Meatloaf FIFTEEN YEARS to get paid for "Bat Out of Hell I" and he ended up filing for bankruptcy? Yeah they claimed that an album still on the top 200 actually didn't make any money. You know how much Cheap trick gets from iTunes? ZERO. Hell even corporate suckups Metallica only get a lousy 85c for a $20 album! while the fantasy of having a hit song and never working is nice, I can tell you from watching friends sign contracts that unless you are a hit long enough to survive your first contract not only will you not make it rich, but you may even get a fricking BILL after they get done cooking up "expenses". I know because I had some friends in Nashville that ended up having to break up after selling over a quarter million records because not only did they not get a cent, they got hit for a bill for $35k for "advertising expenses" even though they didn't get promoted for shit. oh and the record company now owns all the rights. Sweet huh?
So I'm sorry if you don't like the way I write, but after seeing these blood sucking leeches first hand frankly the whole damned system needs to be junked. I swear to God I've known dope dealers that are less scummy and evil than record scouts. And the reason why these major asses have so much power is thanks to copyrights giving them unlimited capital to bribe and coerce. And surely you will admit 150+ year copyrights are nothing but a license to print money for middlemen, correct?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If they had to gain they would oppose the patent system. Instead they embraced it. They likely have done assessments.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Software patents are damaging and a barrier to entry which reduces competition.
Except that, in this case, Microsoft is fighting software patents because they're actually removing a barrier to entry. Traditionally, if you were a small startup that did anything interesting and innovative - especially if it needed to interface with Microsoft products - you risked Microsoft cloning your product and driving you out of business.
Microsoft could integrate with their own products in a way no third party could and piggy-back on the fact that everyone uses Microsoft software to drive uptake regardless of the actual merits. At one point, they could drive innovators out of business merely by suggesting they would make a competing product at some point in the future.
They tried exactly this with i4i. They integrated a clone of i4i's software in every copy of Office, paid for by the Office licensing fees. You could still get i4i's software, and it even still sort-of worked with the new version of Office, but since it required a copy of Office you'd have to buy Microsoft's clone equivalent anyway. This would've worked, but they were blocked by the fact that i4i had software patents.
If Microsoft loses, we get to take joy in the loss. If Microsoft wins, we get to take joy at Microsoft for narrowing patent law to its own long-term disadvantage.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Well, you have to bet on Microsoft. Come on -- it's our Supreme Court and the biggest corporation has the most rights.
If you're going to "root" for anything, root for something practical that benefits all...A comet strikes D.C. the day of the hearing. No losers!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Microsoft was also behind that Acacia suing Redhat.
Where's the (-1, naïve) button??
Patented (duh!)
coding is life
Microsoft will not be arguing software patents are ludicrous before the supreme court; it will be arguing the patents are not valid. Translated: the rules apply, just not to Microsoft.
Let them get bitten in the ass by their own supported rules, and hope it happens enough times so they'll reconsider their stance.
at Burger King in favor of a WOPR rather than a Big Mac...
I am so hungry right now! And I also have a strange urge to go find an acoustic coupler for my phone and invite Ally Sheedy to my place...
But seriously, a burger would be awesome @now. Really.
coding is life
It's not as if the patent system is on trial.
MS will continue scamming, bullying, and extorting; regardless of the outcome of this trial.
Other companies will also attack MS, but MS has the upper hand, because MS has more money.
Patents (and copyrights for that matter) may have started out with noble ideals, but today they are distorted to such an extent that their net effect is extremely harmful and very much evil.
Patents were supposed to encourage innovation, but today they actually impede innovation significantly. Even Bill Gates has said so.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Both Microsoft and software patents are evil and powerful, but Microsoft's power is ebbing away while the corrosive effects of the patent system are still hurting software developers. I'm rooting for Microsoft 100% in this case since the patent system, much more than Microsoft, is capable of leeching the lifeblood from software development.
You're still using trolling mode really, with all your aggressive adjectives and assertions. If you don't want to acknowledge it, fine, but some people will just dismay what you say because of the way you say it.
That said, I actually read what you wrote, and I mostly agree with you that those contracts you talk about are just incredibly bad. I'm just saying, the whole system is broken, and that's why middlemen can get away with this. I'm just pointing that there is more than just the "middlemen abuse of the system" problem. They're just a symptom of the whole thing, they only do it because they can. The copyright system is broken, but you'll not fix it just shooting the middlemen.
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Setting such a high price tag would simply keep small players out of the market, the likes of disney would continue renewing the copyright on mickey mouse indefinitely...
Incidentally, i4i are not a typical patent troll, they actually have and were selling a product when MS stole the idea and integrated it into their product effectively killing i4i's market. That said, it shows that you should never trust microsoft not to screw you and i4i should have known better with all the history.
Copyrights should be much shorter (maybe 5 years? very few works, especially software are still worth selling after this long anyway), and should require that the copyrighted work remains available for purchase at the same or lower price (allowing for inflation) for the duration of the copyright term. If you want to stop selling something, then copyright expires and the work falls into the public domain - no hoarding of works...
Any copyrighted works which are delivered in non original form (eg compiled software or drm'd media) should also be stored by a neutral third party so that when the work falls into the public domain, a usable copy is available.
Shorter copyright terms would force content creators to actually continue working for their money, it is sickening to see someone who hasn't produced anything of value in years continue to roll around in money.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
If Microsoft is successful here, then it will be easier to invalidate questionable patents, especially when using prior art or other evidence not considered by the Patent Office. This is significant because the Patent Office often does not have the time or resources to search all possible prior art, especially art that has not been neatly cataloged and indexed for search (e.g. that ancient piece of software you remember using in the 80s that did exactly what the patent claims but isn't sold anymore).
An important feature of this case is that even if Microsoft wins at the Supreme Court level, the patent may still be found valid and infringed. If Microsoft wins and the case goes back down to the trial court, it's entirely possible that the judge will say "nope, the evidence still doesn't meet the new lower standard; pay up."
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Yup.
Originally patents were designed to help innovation. Rather than keeping your thing secret, you told everyone how it worked -- in return for a temporary monopoly on that thing. And by "thing" I mean "specific implementation". Something that passes a rigorous test of "obviousness to one skilled in the art", prior art (including prior art that everyone knows about but isn't covered by patents), etc.
The state of patents, particularly in the USA, is much different today. Patents are granted without proper examination by experts (for example, in the first 10-or-so years of their granting software patents, the PTO didn't have a single software engineer as an examiner). They're granted on "business methods"... basically, just on ideas, not implementations, which is completely counter to their original purpose.
And large companies have evolved with this. IBM, for example, turned their patent department into a profit center back in the 1980s, and they learned to manipulate the system. Rather than investigate patenting things that were clearly new and innovative inventions, they took a different approach -- they patented anything that COULD be patented. They examined every little thing IBM engineers produced, and filed crazy patents. For example, IBM got a patent, in 1984 (now expired, at least) on cut and paste between text buffers. I saw them demonstrate this patent using Emacs... using a set of keystrokes that would have worked perfectly well on RMS's original TECO Emacs back in the 70s.
-Dave Haynie
Relatedly, Harper v. Maverick Recording Co. (Docket number 10-94), an RIAA case which concerns the innocent infringer defense, was denied cert at the same conference.
Technically speaking, Microsoft (and everyone else) is totally free to implement good ideas from anything they see. A patent doesn't cover an idea, it covers a very specific implementation.
Now, sure, in the real world, this may get you sued, just because companies are lawsuit-happy these days. But if your implementation is different, you should win that lawsuit. If it's not, then yeah, you're violating that patent.
-Dave Haynie
As a user of Google Analytics, I can honestly say "boohoo".
If you don't like it, block the cookie. Every modern browser I know of supports it, so go do it and you're done.
As for evil, Google is offering a service that every web developer wanted and/or was already doing themselves. Google simply provides an outsourced way of doing it for us. Knowing how long customers stay on pages, and which links they navigate to how often is hardly evil information.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
if you don't like it, block the cookie. Every modern browser I know of supports it, so go do it and you're done.
Most people aren't even aware that it's there. Those that are aren't aware that blocking the cookie will have any effect (at least I wasn't until now).
The thing with a tracking cookie is that it can be deleted without affecting your enjoyment of the software you are using (page you are on)... try that with Windows/DirectX/.NET.
The analytic site can also be blocked and it doesn't cause the page to tell you your copy of some browser may be invalid and ask you to validate it by calling home while blanking your desktop.
The level of expertise involved in blocking Google is an order of difficulty less than trying to create your own Win32 API that doesn't violate patent or copyright.
It's fairly easy to avoid using Google in everything, without exception. Try that with Microsoft.
Disclaimer(?): I use Linux at home for general browsing, Gmail and simple games. I am forced to use Microsoft at work by my employer and at home by the likes of developers who can't be bothered to make Linux versions. If I were to drop Microsoft in everything I'd have to find a hobby that didn't involve using a computer and that's getting hard. (eg: I recently bought a module to alter the operation of my convertible top and it required Windows to program the module with the settings I wanted. Without programming, it was a brick and useless.)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
So, you're telling me there is only one solution for a developer to do something?
To be fair, there is usually, at any given time, only one (sometimes a few) "best" way for a developer to solve a given problem. Regardless how the code is written (which has an exponential number of ways to be written) there is usually only one "best" method/algorithm to be used. Are we going to force all developers to be inefficient to avoid being sued?
Software patents are no different than normal patents in that it restricts one group from solving a problem. That is what a patent does, to reward the person who solved it first for a fixed period of time.
Really, any argument you make for the physical analogy...i.e. physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents.
The problem is that software patents are not screened and are granted without any process...eg granting a one click purchase patent...that was not something that was invented or a problem solved. Software patents themselves however are not a bad thing. If an AV company comes up with an amazing heuristic to negate malware they should be able to protect and license their solution if they want, something copyright and trade secrets don't allow.
In theory, you are correct that the analogy of physical patents are for specific implementations can be applied to software equivalents. In practice however, software patents are granted for ideas. Algorithms. Not specific implementations. That's the problem and why, as a developer, I detest them. If I come up with an idea and implement it, I have to wonder if someone else came up with that idea already and no matter how they implemented it, I can get sued for using the same idea. When you're dealing with software and development, the idea is all what matters. You can implement an algorithm in hundreds of ways some are more efficient than others. However, software patents don't cover a specific implementation of an algorithm, they cover the algorithm itself. It's like patenting a mathematical formula. It shouldn't be allowed because it restricts progress more than any benefit it may provide to the person who came up with it.
In addition, frequently many developers come up with the same idea for the same algorithm at the same time, but worlds apart. Why should one be allowed to use his idea and the other not allowed just because one of them got to the patent office faster? Even though they came up with different ways of actually implementing the idea?
An Algorithm is a specific implementation of a solution to a problem. To use an example in my previous post, if an AV company comes up with an amazing methodology to preemptive detect viruses and remove them, then they should be allowed to protect and license this. copyright and trade secrets are simply not enough.
The problem is where to draw the line. At the least, a certain level of complexity should be enforced. This would prevent people getting patents on things that inevitably have been thought of and used by many other people, i.e. QuickSort.
It is not enough with a software patent to patent a specific implementation of the algorithm, as this could be easily bypassed by making some modifications. Of course the current system is far too abstract, there needs to be some compromise.
Another example, RAR archives. AFAIK know the format and algorithms were the work on one guy, but even if not lets assume it was. The format is sufficiently unique that the work done was not negligible, and is complex enough that someone inventing the same thing by accident are unlikely. So, that guy should not be allowed to license and profit of the fruit of his labors? Nonsense.
A complicated software patent is not simply a mathematical equation. It can simply be reduced to that, but any digital TV show can also be reduced to math,you would hardly say it is just math however. A lot of work goes into an advanced program, and the fact that it *can* be reduced to just math is basically irrelevant.
A main point of consideration is that it is much easier to program things than it is to actually physically invent them, so we have a higher occurrence of people trying out ideas and coming up with implementations than we do in the real world. The main difference this would make in my mind is only that there should be a much shorter time period for a patents lifetime. Maybe 7 years as opposed to 20 for physical patents.
As per your last point....I don't see how that has anything to do with software patents. That is something that affects inventors in the real world two...., all the time. History is full of people who invented the same thing at near the same time, but didn't realize they got beat to it or didn't get to the patent office first(which is meaningless in the US, which is a first to invent not first to file country). As above though...ensuring a minimum level of complexity and uniqueness for software patents along with a shorter period of enforcement to compensate for the much greater number of developers and ease of development would be a start.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
However patents should not be able to change owner, a patent should die with it's owner.
Sometimes, a hit man is cheaper than licensing. Bonus if you can split the cost of the hit with several other corporations that are interested in producing a product using your patent.
And just how am I supposed to act about legal theft? I have watched damned good friends get every damned thing they worked years for stolen right out from under them, and then get told "Just try and sue us, we'll bury you". They lost the rights to their songs, the recordings, hell even their own band name so yeah seeing good people that just want to put food on their tables doing what they love and they have a God given talent for get royally robbed by a system that rewards bribery and power above decency? Yeah it pisses me off.
But anyone who has read my postings knows I am just an honest Joe that calls it like he sees it, and I actually have feelings and am not afraid to express them. If I was trying to troll I would have called them filthy names instead of leeches, which anyone who has looked into Hollywood accounting knows that calling them leeches when they have built an entire industry around legalized robbery is actually being quite civil. Think Hollywood Accounting is bad? Look at the contracts for new musical acts. THE COMPANY get the copyrights, THE COMPANY get the digital sales, THE COMPANY get the sheet music rights, and THE COMPANY gets to decide "when and if" you actually get paid a cent or OWE THEM MONEY for "expenses". If anyone else tried that kind of bullshit they'd be hit by RICO so fast it would make their heads spin, but because endless copyrights give them endless money for bribes it is all gravy.
Complain about me having feelings in the matter all you want, but good honest decent folks are getting robbed every damned day of the week by leeches that then have the gall to sue kids and granny saying "it's for the artists" that they just don't happen to pay and often steal from. If that can of unmitigated gall doesn't severely piss you off, well then you have no heart sir. Living so close to Memphis and Nashville I have watched good decent people lose everything they own just trying to get these leeches to pay a few cents on the dollars they made, often ending up losing everything that they own thanks to endless lawyers and legal BS on the part of the record companies. It is wrong, it is evil, and it is disgusting that they are allowed to get away with this garbage. I really don't know how to put legalized theft and racketeering into any nicer words than that. I'm sorry if that offends you, but their actions are frankly and patently offensive sir.
And blaming it on "the system" is like saying we shouldn't do anything about insider trading or bribes, since bribes and insider trading has existed for centuries. What we can do is get royally pissed off, make sure every time they say "it is for the artists" we drown them out with example after example of their thefts, in short we make sure that everywhere they go they are treated like the leeches they are. It will be that much harder for them to bribe and rig if the populace looks at them as scum, because politicians still want to be re-elected and being seen as supporting robbing kids of their dreams is about as low as you can get. We geeks can make cool viral videos, websites to inform which politicians have been selling us out, we CAN make a difference! So while we agree the system is broken, I believe the first step in fixing it is pointing out the "rich artists" lie, because compared to what the leeches get even the top acts make a pittance. Sure it looks like a lot to an average Joe, but point out that they are getting less than 6c on the dollar on average, and most don't get paid at all, and Joe will realize it ain't the artists being greedy here, it is the leeches in the middle. Peace.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"at" now?
When i wrote that I had been up for far too long.... which, come to think of it, is also the case at this very minute....hmmm...
I wonder if it has something to do with my profession (namely, trying to pretend that we can stay up as long as the computers we shepherd...)
(Also, now.com is apparently the site of some Hong Kong TV company)
coding is life
Lots and lots of data available from Google if you're interested in how they use cookies.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Still, the patent would expire prematurely. And you think that a multi-million-dollar corporation couldn't find a way to get away with it? Laws should not create the means for a corporation to benefit from someone's death. You would be creating an incentive for them to creatively eliminate patent holders. And they are quite resourceful. More so than law enforcement.
Yes. Laws should never create a public benefit to murder.
If I came up with a magic-bullet cure for cancer and patented it, holding out for the drug companies to meet my demands, they could easily turn half the country into headhunters after me so they can use the patent without paying me.